What's debate have you worked hardest on?

I'm curious to hear which debates required you all to do the most research, the most thinking, revision, etc... Please feel free to upload a link to the debate if you can and if you'd like!

For me, the debate I put the most effort into was a prepared resolution for two different rounds of a debate tournament. It was something like "THBT The Chinese System is Better Equipped to Face the Challenges of the Future Than the American System", and a few weeks to prepare arguments for pro and con. So naturally, I made 35 pages worth of research and arguments, researched statistics, read articles, made my own datasets, wrote out a more in depth opinion on individualism and collectivism than I have ever read in my entire life, and it paid off.

Me and my debate partner would've went to the provincials from that tournament, but we got screwed over by a judge in the 3rd round (there were only 4 rounds) and he absolutely tanked our score. I'm still proud of how much effort I put into it, though!

Also 

I do not consider this my best arguments since this is a year old and I have grown a lot out of it. However, it truly had me jumping up and down for thinking new rebuttals and controversial stances I didn't think it would be possible at the time. The same for the one posted above. In fact, CalebEr has debated me with the topic above with me losing due to what I conclude the execution and not the main idea.

To me, breaking barriers and brainwork is the most efficient type of work for debates and philosophy. Researching became a simple breeze for most of my debates(yes, even the deep ones, because all you need is to prove either something is true, or it isn't, and all truth stands upon true-or-false statements, at least we can represent it like that). To me, starting with only evidence in the very bottom is enough for me to prove a statement that may not even be fathomable for the average brain if I want to, as long as I have enough evidence(which sometimes I lose because I have not).

The ones I studied the most for: https://www.debateart.com/debates/3014-this-house-prefers-kantian-ethics-over-utilitarianism 

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2544-american-military-and-paramilitary-support-in-the-secret-war-in-laos-was-justified 

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3063-thbt-the-third-reich-lost-ww2-because-hitler-made-bad-wartime-decisions 

My dumbest loss:

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2584-the-universe-is-older-than-10-000-years 

My most formidable contender: 

https://www.debateart.com/debates/2817-the-big-bang-probably-happened 

Probably this one between myself and Speedrace. I was debating in Devil's Advocate, something I don't do much. It doesn't help that most literature favors the PRO side... I had to research my butt off.

My internet account was overdue and got switched off immediately after I accepted a debate by one of the best debaters on the site.  I spent hours and hours researching and typing from my iphone in a McDonald's parking lot (because free wifi) in 100 degree heat.   Brutal.

Out of everything I could think of that would suck when it comes to doing a debate, doing it on an online keyboard in 100 degree weather is probably one of the worst. Props.

I'm reading through your debate with Fruit_Inspector on the big bang right now, and I must say, it's certainly an interesting topic. I feel like I would be too afraid to take on a debate with regards to an event that happened before human life even began, haha. But the debate taught me a few things I didn't know or didn't fully understand.

It's a good debate if I can say so myself. I feel like I could have elaborated more in the last round about Big bang predictions, But like always, I was finishing up that argument at the last second

I accepted The Bible Teaches That Jesus Christ Is God, knowing my position was unattainable bullshit; and further was pretty sure ideologue fluffers would vote for my opponent no matter what. That one was a ton of work, which I tried to fight on every angle.

One that came to mind first, but in review didn't hold up quite as well was Perpetrators of Minor Crimes Should Not Be Arrested, which I accepted without study, and expecting to lose (didn't mean I would lay down and take it).

I lost this one but did a good amount of research for it: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1675-living-in-the-united-states-is-better-than-the-majority-of-developed-nations

That trolley track problem still stumps me, haha. It's a topic I view as far too based in non-objective philosophy, something which I am not very well versed in.

I agree with you, though. Breaking barriers is probably the most useful form of debate. When it comes to debating, understanding the weakpoint in an opponent's argument that deconstructs the whole argument is probably not only the most important ability debate can develop, but also the most satisfying.

im not good at debating formally but research wise it would be the debate it did with theunderdog on systemic racism sadly he couldnt respond due to summer work